Biographer: Steve Jobs regretted not having cancer surgery earlier

Walter Isaacson, whose biography of Steve Jobs will be out next Monday, …

It's well-known that Steve Jobs put off surgery to treat his pancreatic cancer for nine months after it was diagnosed in 2003. Instead, he attempted to treat it with alternative therapies before electing to have a Whipple procedure in 2004. Now his biographer Walter Isaacson tells CBS show 60 Minutes that Apple's iconic CEO regretted not having the surgery earlier:

"I've asked [Jobs why he didn't get an operation then] and he said, "I didn't want my body to be opened...I didn't want to be violated in that way," Isaacson recalls. So he waited nine months, while his wife and others urged him to do it, before getting the operation, reveals Isaacson. Asked by Kroft how such an intelligent man could make such a seemingly stupid decision, Isaacson replies, "I think that he kind of felt that if you ignore something, if you don't want something to exist, you can have magical thinking...we talked about this a lot," he tells Kroft. "He wanted to talk about it, how he regretted it....I think he felt he should have been operated on sooner."

Isaacson also reveals that Jobs continued to receive treatment for the cancer while maintaining he had been cured of the condition to Apple employees.

The 60 Minutes interview with Isaacson will air Sunday, October 23 at 7pm EDT. Isaacson's book, Steve Jobs will hit store shelves on Monday, October 24, and the Ars review of the book will be up shortly thereafter, so keep an eye out for it.

No suprise to me that 'alternative medicine' has claimed yet another life. He might have died anyway, of course, but his odds were much higher had he done what has a demonstrated success rate immediatly rather than putting it off in the hopes of some sort of magical herb or whatever he was sold on.

Too bad, really smart guy, one would think he'd have been logical enough to see through the scams.

No suprise to me that 'alternative medicine' has claimed yet another life. He might have died anyway, of course, but his odds were much higher had he done what has a demonstrated success rate immediatly rather than putting it off in the hopes of some sort of magical herb or whatever he was sold on.

Too bad, really smart guy, one would think he'd have been logical enough to see through the scams.

This, so much this. It's always sad to see alternative medicine contribute to the death of someone, and this one has impacted more people than usual. We should note that Steve Jobs is a very intelligent person, yet even he fell victim to this; we're all vulnerable to making irrational choices with our health, and we should always remain vigilant.

With any luck, this will contribute to publicizing what a sham alternative medicine is. Heck, if it convinces the Apple faithful to push this info as hard as they proselytize Apple products, the positive impact could be huge.

"I didn't want my body to be opened...I didn't want to be violated in that way,"

Its odd that my first thought when I read that sentence was that he had the same opinion of his body and his products. You shouldn't worry about the insides, its should just work given the correct input.

Isaacson also reveals that Jobs continued to receive treatment for the cancer while maintaining he had been cured of the condition to Apple employees.

Aren't there some fiduciary responsibility issues here? If he was still receiving treatment for cancer while telling the world (and investors) that he was cured, doesn't that unfairly represent the value of the company?

What's interesting to me is the way that Jobs' life reflects the narrative arc of Greek tragedy, with the hubris of thinking different leading to the ate of avoiding surgery and finally the nemesis of cancer. Not many folks can claim that, these days.

My friends mom tried alternative therapies after being diagnosed with cancer. Unfortunately, when she finally went to a medical doctor, she was told she only had 3 months to live and they couldn't do anything because the cancer affected all her major organs by then. Really sad-hopefully other people will hear this and not delay treatments.

"I didn't want my body to be opened...I didn't want to be violated in that way,"

Its odd that my first thought when I read that sentence was that he had the same opinion of his body and his products. You shouldn't worry about the insides, its should just work given the correct input.

When the alternative treatments failed did he say, "you're cancer treating it wrong"?

I'm just starting to watch 'Breaking Bad' and what that show has taught me is that you never really know what you're going to do if you had cancer UNTIL you actually have it. We should not judge what S. Jobs thought. In reality, the particular cancer he had was very deadly.

Isaacson also reveals that Jobs continued to receive treatment for the cancer while maintaining he had been cured of the condition to Apple employees.

Aren't there some fiduciary responsibility issues here? If he was still receiving treatment for cancer while telling the world (and investors) that he was cured, doesn't that unfairly represent the value of the company?

This really hasn't been well defined. Certainly, even as a major investor in a company, you don't have a right to the CEO's medical records. Does the CEO have a legal obligation to be honest to investors (and therefore his family and the public) about his health? It's tough. It's probably going to take the SEC issuing rules specifically about medical records and then a court battle to clear this up.

In this case, given the smoothness of the transition, it's hard to imagine any investors suing either the company or Jobs' estate. You assert that it caused the value of the company to be "unfairly" represented -- can you support that claim? It's not like the stock tanked once news came out (or even after he died), and in order to win any fiduciary responsibility suit, you have to show actual damages -- not just that damages could have hypothetically occurred.

He didn't do alternative treatment, he delayed conventional treatment. It's NOT the same course of action at all.

Second sentence:

"Instead, he attempted to treat it with alternative therapies before electing to have a Whipple procedure in 2004."

True, but he still lived well beyond the norm even for regularly treated patients.

No he didn't.

MongoMania wrote:

If average lifespan after Whipple is 5 years, he still got 2 more than average.

Pretty sure that number is made up. The average pancreatic adenocarcinoma patient lasts something like a year with surgery (vaguely recalling my pathology class back in the day). Jobs didn't have an adenocarcinoma. He had some kind of other endocrine tumor that happened to be in his pancreas. Those tend to be tremendously more treatable, and very often curable. The fact that he lived even 9 months in relatively good health without treatment strongly suggests that he had a highly treatable disease.

He didn't do alternative treatment, he delayed conventional treatment. It's NOT the same course of action at all.

Since almost all "alternative therapies" are effectively the same thing as doing nothing at all for some period of time, I fail to see a meaningful difference here. Other than, of course, if he *didn't* seek alternative therapies, he was actively choosing to delay the surgery, as opposed to delaying it because someone convinced him he didn't need it. That is an important distinction, but in the end, it's the same result.

That said, I do think you have a valid point about the surgery giving him about the expected amount of additional years, so perhaps the delay didn't actually cost him anything. The problem is, you can't know. . . earlier treatment might have bought him 8 or 10 years instead of 5, perhaps? Then again, maybe not.

Speaking from my own personal experiences with cancer, twice, I was very young when I was diagnosed both times. I didn't have a choice int he matter of having surgery or not, that was my parents decision. Having been in remission for more that 25 years I still wouldn't call the illness 'cured'. I can understand his reluctance to have surgery because that is a fundamentally life changing experience.

He didn't do alternative treatment, he delayed conventional treatment. It's NOT the same course of action at all.

Second sentence:

"Instead, he attempted to treat it with alternative therapies before electing to have a Whipple procedure in 2004."

True, but he still lived well beyond the norm even for regularly treated patients. If average lifespan after Whipple is 5 years, he still got 2 more than average.

The average is actually longer (about 7 years or better), and by accounts Jobs should have been in a much better position than most since his detection was NOT due to symptoms but rather a “routine abdominal scan” (executive medical plan). The key to longterm survival/remission is treatment before the cancer metastasizes (spreads). A key problem with pancreatic cancer is detection is usually too late, by the time you are experiencing symptoms muchless recognize them for what they are you are done like toast.

Although it is not certain, and really there is no way to be certain now, those 9 months of delay might have been the difference between just being an average victim and having a much higher than average chunk of time.

It is hard to see this something other than an opportunity he squandered. *shrug*

He didn't do alternative treatment, he delayed conventional treatment. It's NOT the same course of action at all.

Second sentence:

"Instead, he attempted to treat it with alternative therapies before electing to have a Whipple procedure in 2004."

True, but he still lived well beyond the norm even for regularly treated patients. If average lifespan after Whipple is 5 years, he still got 2 more than average.

He had access to far superior care than the 'average' patient with his form of cancer. That he lived longer than the norm is not suprising to me at all. Given the level of care he was able to recieve, had he started immediatly I am willing to bet his chance of survival would have been significantly above the average as well.

No suprise to me that 'alternative medicine' has claimed yet another life. He might have died anyway, of course, but his odds were much higher had he done what has a demonstrated success rate immediatly rather than putting it off in the hopes of some sort of magical herb or whatever he was sold on.

Too bad, really smart guy, one would think he'd have been logical enough to see through the scams.

I think that many folks may not understand that Jobs thought in different ways. Part of his success was ignoring a lot of what "smart guys kept telling him", such as "Don't take the floppy drive out of the iMac" or

"You've failed at Apple, you should dismantle it and sell it back to the shareholders."

"NeXT was a failure, it's an operating system that won't go anywhere."

Jobs had the confidence he had because of that innate sense of his own rightness of vision. The point I'm making is that the same stubbornness that MAY have caused a premature death by cancer IS also much of the secret of his success.

For many people with cancer, the most intelligent decision might be to have no treatment. I've seen too many family members and friends robbed of all their dignity and quality of life during their last days by invasive treatment. That is not to say that Mr Jobs would not have benefited by earlier surgery.

This really hasn't been well defined. Certainly, even as a major investor in a company, you don't have a right to the CEO's medical records. Does the CEO have a legal obligation to be honest to investors (and therefore his family and the public) about his health? It's tough. It's probably going to take the SEC issuing rules specifically about medical records and then a court battle to clear this up.

I doubt it needs to go as far as exposing medical records, but I think there could be some traction in the idea that a CEO should be honest with investors about his continued ability to lead the company.

Quote:

In this case, given the smoothness of the transition, it's hard to imagine any investors suing either the company or Jobs' estate. You assert that it caused the value of the company to be "unfairly" represented -- can you support that claim? It's not like the stock tanked once news came out

At the time, we knew nothing until he simultaneously revealed that he had been treated and "cured".

Quote:

(or even after he died),

By which point he was no longer CEO

Quote:

and in order to win any fiduciary responsibility suit, you have to show actual damages -- not just that damages could have hypothetically occurred.

Financial damage don't have to occur for it still be a failure in ethics. It may have worked out for Apple this time, but it might not work out for the next company that tries it.

I'm just starting to watch 'Breaking Bad' and what that show has taught me is that you never really know what you're going to do if you had cancer UNTIL you actually have it. We should not judge what S. Jobs thought. In reality, the particular cancer he had was very deadly.

My understanding was that the particular form of pancreatic cancer he had was very much treatable, and that if he had gone the traditional medicine route, he would almost certainly have lived.

Sad that he regretted it, but it was his body and his life to do with as he saw fit. Surgery is a major step, not one anyone should take lightly, and a very personal decision. You are missed Steve, and we will not second-guess your decisions without having stood in your place.

Isaacson also reveals that Jobs continued to receive treatment for the cancer while maintaining he had been cured of the condition to Apple employees.

Aren't there some fiduciary responsibility issues here? If he was still receiving treatment for cancer while telling the world (and investors) that he was cured, doesn't that unfairly represent the value of the company?

Hard to say, as i think most other companies where the CEO gets ill would just have the board shrug and designate a replacement or temporary CEO.

But Apple ran on a kind of "cult of personality", Jobs was THE Apple face. I find myself comparing it to how Hoover ran the FBI, in that only he was the FBI face.

I do not think one can make any clear cut rule about something like this, as it was very much a exception to the norm.

Note that he apparently had an insulinoma, which is readily curable if treated in time.

Guy literally killed himself by not going to the doctor. No shit he regretted that decision. I would too.

Too bad then. I wasn't saying he had lived longer, I don't know the statistics. I was only stating that if he had it would not be suprising. He likely lived longer than others would have who made the same poor decisions about treatment, for the reasons I stated above.

Any way you go it was a profoundly stupid decision. I've watched two friends battle cancer in the past three years. One successfully(despite a recurrance) and one, unfortunatly, not. One thing I've learned is that if you are diagnosed you don't fuck around. You don't go get crystals or special herbs or baking soda(yes, this is a promoted 'cure' by some guy on the radio who claims cancer is a fungus). You get in there, you let them carve out whatever needs to be carved, and you get hit by radiation and chemicals until its fucking dead. Period.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but its been a horrible few years, and seeing the snake oil pushers making these claims truly upsets me. Its peoples lives they are casually playing with and attempting to profit from.